SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 03 2018, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Blair Fitzgibbon, 202-503-6141, blair@soundspeedpr.com
As World Gathers for COP24, Chase Bank Found Undermining Paris Agreement by Financing Coal Power Expansion in Poland
As global leaders convene in Katowice to strengthen climate commitments at COP24, a briefing paper released today by
Katowice
As global leaders convene in Katowice to strengthen climate commitments at COP24, a briefing paper released today by Rainforest Action Network(RAN) and Fundacja Rozwoj Tak - Odkrywki Nie(Foundation Development Yes - Open-Pit Mines No, or RT-ON) underscores the counterproductive role of major financial institutions like JPMorgan (Chase) to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Chase is enabling the Polish coal industry to continue to grow even while other countries across Europe make commitments to phase out coal. The planned Ostroleka C coal-fired power plant has attracted particular controversy.
Read paper here: https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Chase_Financing_Coal_Power_Expansion_in_Poland_2018_vPOL_vWEB-1.pdf
Chase, already the target of a growing international climate accountability campaign due to its role as the #1 U.S. banker of extreme fossil fuels, is supporting Ostroleka C via financing for Energa, one of the two state-controlled companies behind the project. The Ostroleka C power plant is projected to burn two million tons of coal per year from 2023 to 2063, emitting six million tons of CO2annually and causing serious public health impacts.
Last year, Chase underwrote a EUR300 million bond issuance for Energa at a time when Ostroleka C was a key strategic project for the company, despite a Chase policy ruling out direct finance for new coal plants in OECD countries, including Poland. This bond issuance constituted the only private bank financing for either Energa or Enea since the adoption of the Paris climate agreement in 2015.
"From a climate context, new coal power should not be happening, and Chase knows it. Yet, Chase is actively promoting the expansion of coal power in Poland by exploiting a glaring loophole in its coal policy that goes totally against its stated commitment not to fund the expansion of coal-fired power plants," said Jason Opena Disterhoft with Rainforest Action Network (RAN). "Chase's financing of Ostroleka C is flatly incompatible with the Paris Agreement or supporting a 1.5 degree world."
"JPMorgan Chase should know better," said Kuba Gogolewski, Senior Finance Campaigner at Foundation "Development YES - Open-Pit Mines NO". "They should look beyond the very short-term interest in providing finance to the Polish coal industry. The energy system in Poland must undergo a rapid transformation, and JPMorgan Chase is slowing down this change by financing coal utilities and coal power plants."
Chase has been the target of widespread, escalating protests calling on the bank to end its massive financing of the most destructive and polluting forms of fossil fuelsand to align its policies and practices with the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Agreement.
The October 2018 report from the IPCC has brought unprecedented attention to the urgency of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To meet that goal, global carbon emissions would have to fall by about 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, reaching zero around 2050. New Coalswarm and Greenpeace analysis has shown that OECD countries -- including Poland -- must lead the way by ending coal power by 2030. By contrast, any new coal-fired power plants are flatly incompatible with limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees. These would drive expanded extraction, when potential emissions from currently operating coal, oil and gas reserves takes the world beyond 2degC, and emissions even from currently operating oil and gas alone takes the world past 1.5degC.
Shareholders, investors, financial analysts, and lawmakers increasingly recognize how financially tenuous and environmentally disastrous the Ostroleka C project--and Poland's coal industry--is. Carbon Tracker projects that the power plant, if built, would be "permanently unprofitable," with a net loss of EUR1.7 billion over its lifetime. Furthermore, Ostroleka C is facing challenges in the courts. ClientEarth, a shareholder in Enea, has sued the company for approving the project, and one of Enea's trade unions has filed a parallel lawsuit.
Ostroleka C is slated to be the last coal-fired power plant in Poland, and major international insurers have already stated that they will have nothing to do with the project. Chase has, to date, made no such commitment, and, on the contrary, appears to be committed to facilitating the construction of a climate-destructive coal plant in a tenuous financial situation.
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
LATEST NEWS
Pentagon Fails Seventh Straight Audit as Annual US Military Budget Nears $1 Trillion
Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation that would require the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget as a penalty for failing audits, but lawmakers from both parties have declined to consider the bill.
Nov 18, 2024
The Pentagon announced late last week that it failed its seventh consecutive audit as the sprawling, profiteering-ridden department wasn't able to fully account for its trillions of dollars in assets.
As with its past failures to achieve a clean audit, the U.S. Defense Department attempted to cast the 2024 results in a positive light, with the Pentagon's chief financial officer declaring in a statement that "momentum is on our side."
The Pentagon is the largest U.S. federal agency and is responsible for roughly half of the government's annual discretionary spending, with its yearly budget approaching $1 trillion despite long-standing concerns about the department's inability to account for vast sums of money approved by lawmakers and presidents from both major parties.
The latest financial assessment published Friday by the Defense Department's inspector general office estimates that the Pentagon has $4.1 trillion in assets. It is the only major federal agency that has never passed a clean audit, as required by law.
"Of the 28 reporting entities undergoing stand-alone financial statement audits, nine received an unmodified audit opinion, one received a qualified opinion, 15 received disclaimers, and three opinions remain pending," the Pentagon
said Friday.
Since the department's first failed audit in 2018, Congress has authorized trillions of dollars in additional military spending. According to the Costs of War Project, more than half of the department's annual budget "is now spent on military contractors" that are notorious for overbilling the government.
Progressive watchdogs and lawmakers have long cited the Pentagon's failure to pass a clean audit as evidence of the department's pervasive waste and fraud. The Pentagon buried a 2015 report identifying $125 billion in administrative waste out of concern that the findings would be used as a justification "to slash the defense budget," as The Washington Postreported at the time.
Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget to the Treasury Department's general fund as a penalty for failing audits.
"Year after year the establishment on both sides of the aisle have prevented these amendments from receiving a single roll call vote," Warren Gunnels, Sanders' staff director, wrote on social media over the weekend.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Revives Bill to Let Authoritarian Trump Crush Nonprofits
"We urge the House of Representatives to reject this dangerous bill and to protect our freedom of speech and our right to dissent," said the president of Oxfam America.
Nov 18, 2024
House Republicans have revived and are looking to push through legislation this week that would hand President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration sweeping power to investigate and shut down nonprofit organizations, including news outlets and humanitarian groups.
The bill, H.R. 9495, failed to pass the House last week despite bipartisan support because the Republican leadership attempted to pass the measure using a fast-track procedure that requires a two-thirds majority vote. More than 50 Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and other prominent members, backed the legislation in last week's vote, along with 204 Republicans.
This time, the GOP is attempting to advance the bill through regular order, meaning it can pass with a simple majority. The Republican-controlled House Rules Committee is scheduled to hold a markup hearing for H.R. 9495 on Monday.
After learning of the hearing, advocacy organizations that mobilized against the bill redoubled their warnings about its dire implications for free expression and the right to dissent—particularly in the hands of a would-be authoritarian who has vowed to prosecute his political enemies.
"The bill we defeated days ago is back," the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights wrote on social media over the weekend. "Representatives are trying to ram through H.R. 9495, a repressive bill that could shut down nonprofits & student groups supporting Palestinian rights."
The legislation, if passed, would give the Treasury Department the authority to unilaterally strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status by designating them supporters of terrorism. As of this writing, Trump has not announced his pick to lead the Treasury Department.
While the bill provides a brief period for an accused nonprofit to defend itself, the ACLU said the provision "is a mere illusion of due process," noting that the federal government would be able to "deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations."
Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, warned in a statement after Republicans revived the bill that H.R. 9495 "would grant the Trump administration, and any future administration, the ability to silence and censor its critics, curb free speech, target political opponents, and punish crucial organizations that speak truth to power and help people in the United States and around the world."
"This bill would increase the powers of the president at the expense of all of our freedoms, and could impact not only organizations like Oxfam, but other nonprofits, news outlets, or even universities who dare to dissent," said Maxman. "It could put our ability to respond to some of the worst humanitarian crises at risk and prevent us from delivering lifesaving aid to some of the world's most marginalized people."
"This bill follows the same playbook Oxfam has seen other governments around the world use to crush dissent. Now we are seeing it here at home," Maxman added. "We urge the House of Representatives to reject this dangerous bill and to protect our freedom of speech and our right to dissent."
It's not clear whether the U.S. Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats, would bring H.R. 9495 to the floor for a vote if it passes the House this week, or whether President Joe Biden would sign it into law. But Republicans will gain full control of Congress and the White House starting in January, giving them the ability to push the legislation through at a later date.
"Their rush to reconsider this bill is solely to offer Trump more and more power, while Trump's nominees for key national security posts this week indicate how he will be using it," Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a leading opponent of the measure, toldThe Intercept on Friday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Approval of Long-Range Missiles Called 'Very Big Step' Towards World War III
One antiwar critic ripped Biden's permission for Ukraine to fire the powerful weapons on Russian targets as "utterly unhinged."
Nov 17, 2024
While neocons from both sides of the proverbial political aisle welcomed what some described as President Joe Biden's "long overdue" decision Sunday to allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep inside Russia with U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, antiwar voices sounded the alarm on what one senior Kremlin official called "a very big step towards the start of World War III."
"Biden has for the first time allowed Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike deep inside Russia," comedian, podcaster, and antiwar writer Lee Camp wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. "Apparently the Dems want WWIII before they leave office. Utterly unhinged."
President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office in 63 days, has vowed to quickly end the nearly 1,000-day war, which Russia started in February 2022 with a massive invasion of its smaller neighbor amid significant NATO provocations.
The New York Timesreported that the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS)—which has a range of 190 miles—will likely first be deployed against Russian and recently arrived North Korean troops in the Kursk region of western Russia, where Ukrainian forces have seized a sizable swath of Russian territory.
"Strikes with U.S. missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably entail a serious escalation, which threatens to lead to much more serious consequences."
The Times said Biden dropped his previous reservations over allowing Ukraine to use the missiles for fear of Moscow's retaliation due to "the sheer audacity of Russia's decision to throw North Korean troops at Ukrainian lines."
Earlier this year, Biden quietly gave Kyiv the green light to carry out limited cross-border strikes near Kharkiv with shorter-range missiles as Russian forces menaced Ukraine's second-largest city.
Taking their cues from Biden, Britain and France on Sunday also dropped their objections to Ukraine using long-range offensive missiles provided by the two countries to attack targets inside Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday: "Today, many in the media are talking about the fact that we have received permission to take appropriate actions. But blows are not inflicted with words. Such things are not announced. The rockets will speak for themselves."
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the U.S. and its allies that approval for Ukrainian attacks with Western long-range missiles "will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries."
Russian officials responded to Biden's move with warnings of serious repercussions.
"Strikes with U.S. missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably entail a serious escalation, which threatens to lead to much more serious consequences," said Leonid Slutsky, who chairs a key foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, according toReuters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular